Current Events > Impeaching Trump is nice and all, but consider abolishing the Electoral College

(+) Yeah! (+)

hockeybub89 posted...

I think it's far harder to game and that you are still thinking in terms of there being places to win as opposed to a flat majority of Americans across the entire country. There is no such thing as a battleground state in a nationwide popular vote.

The Electoral College has convinced people that there are two opinions in America. I think you would see unprecedented turnout and parity if we changed systems. Everything about our elections could be turned on its ear. It's our only hope of moving away from the two-party system.

I agree that if voter turnout were much higher things would be drastically different. Probably in the EC as well. I'm more cynical than you on a lot of things it seems.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

And that's assuming one candidate would win 100% of the vote with 100% turnout.

exactly. If 30% of voters in texas and 70% of californians vote red, it's not like they get no texas votes and all california votes.

---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Pennsylvania is the 6th most populous state in the nation according to the 2010 census.

You do know how EC votes are allocated. right? They didn't just make shit up

It could just be how I view numbers, but 12 mil isn't a lot when looking at the other, more populated ones (Texas has enough people to fill two Pennsylvanias).

And in that case, it's my fault for minimizing numbers.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

Like I said, I think it's easier than manipulating the EC.

It's not. The EC is much easier to manipulate

---

Antifar posted...

Those states have 68 million people, or roughly 22% of the population.

Also, the EC is more likely than a popular vote to lend those states unified power. As demographics shift, we might not be too far from a Democrat narrowly winning Texas, thereby taking 100 percent of those states' electoral votes (17% of the total).

When you combine them, sure the numbers are higher. But individually, they're small, and rarely ever see the big name politicians visiting them for rallies or events. Or when they do, they focus on the large cities.

---

Saying thay California and Texas would decide everything is a very stupid thing to say, but no doubt that a popular voting system will definately be a city vs rural type of scenario.

---

Jiek_Fafn posted...

But they're forced to confront issues theyd otherwise ignore because of the demographics of those states. Lesser evil imo

But now they're just ignoring issues in states populated with more people...

---

The best compromise to ensure for both representation of small towns and larger cities is, in my opinion, to allocate the number of votes each candidate gets to a percentage of the total EC votes for the state and the candidate gets that number of those votes. That would, in theory, still give more of an equal footing towards individuals in smaller states while not losing out on voters in states with clear majorities. This would also likely drive up voter enthusiasm tenfold as voters would feel their vote actually mattered.

Pair that with ranked choice and now you'd actually have a system that could allow for the rise of other parties to become major players and we could join the rest of the developed nations with colliation governments.

---

Prestoff posted...

Saying thay California and Texas would decide everything is a very stupid thing to say, but no doubt that a popular voting system will definately be a city vs rural type of scenario.

The best part about that argument is the implication that hardly anybody lives in the other 46 states, which makes the EC look even worse.

---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

The best compromise to ensure for both representation of small towns and larger cities is, in my opinion, to allocate the number of votes each candidate gets to a percentage of the total EC votes for the state and the candidate gets that number of those votes.

This really is just popular-vote-lite. It also still gives smaller states disproportionate voting power as they get more votes than their population would imply.

---

Nah. It's makes sense under the system of the United States of America.

---

I think each election should be decided by various Survivor-esque challenges, mixed with strip poker and a drinking game. This system would weed out the old and unfit, while simultaneously destroying their livers and self esteem.

---

ZMythos posted...

This really is just popular-vote-lite. It also still gives smaller states disproportionate voting power as they get more votes than their population would imply.

Both of these are true, but I do believe it's at least a better representation of reality while still giving some power to smaller states to not get them completely drowned out.

This way at least gives reason to both campaign for every vote small and large while also not only focusing on the cities and forgetting rural America.

---

Even if he gets removed the American people will just re-elect him

L0Z posted...

Even if he gets removed the American people will just re-elect him

They didn't even elect him in the first place.

---

There are three aspects of the electoral college and people tend to conflate various aspects of it when defending it.

1. The actual process of selecting electors, giving them votes, etc. is stupid. If it ever came to a situation where electors overturned the vote of their state and changed the election outcome, people would be outraged. Why even preserve that system?
2. The actual allocation of delegates. This is what people point to when they try to pretend like the sanctity of small states is at stake, but the truth is that campaigns don't actually go for a "Target the states with the lowest people/EV" strategy. Because...
3. There's the winner-take-all nature of (most) states. This is why candidates spend a disproportionate amount of time in swing states, even though some of those states like Pennsylvania are actually really inefficient on the voters/EV scale.

There should be no arguments for (1) and if you care about (2) than you should be pushing against (3).

---

Knowledge_King posted...

Nah. It's makes sense under the system of the United States of America.

TIL Congress does not exist

---